Climate Action On Two Fronts
At the end of Tuesday, 4 Greenpeace activists have been cut down from the Abbot Point coal facility and are being detained by the police. They are currently on their way to the Bowen police station and are about to be charged. We believe that the charges are “obstructing the police”, and “unregulated high risk activity”. Of course our activities pale in comparison to the High Risk Activity of not cutting C02 emissions, and expanding the coal industry – something that Australia is clearly guilty of. Our activist heroes have done a fabulous job, and deserve our deepest respect.
We have learned that the Small Islands States have produced a communiqué at the Pacific Islands Forum that includes the AOSIS call for developed countries to cut C02 emissions by 45% by 2020. This is a GREAT milestone, and ensures that the pressure will be on both the larger Pacific countries as well as Aus and NZ to do something significant by Thursday.
We have also heard rumours that the Australian government is trying to bully through a “Cairns Declaration on Climate Change” that presumably supports the highly conditional and qualified Australian 5-25% reduction target. This is on the table for Thursday, but we expect that many Pacific countries will say “no way José” to this.
Greenpeace is standing strong with our Pacific brothers and sisters encouraging the kind of action that will secure the Pacific’s future.
There will be more updates on the Pacific Islands Forum throughout the week.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Hi Guys,
I just want to thank you for the work you are doing. You are true heros to have the courage and conviction to hold our government and us, the people, accountable for this mess tha has been made of the climate.
Please know that my thoughts and energy are with you in the come down from the crazy high you must have experienced in putting your passion in to action.
Thankyou again and keep up the good work.
Nic
August 5th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Given that the Indian and Chinese governments have thumbed their nose at the IPCC and continue with their intention to provide more of their citizens with a higher standard of living, is it really Greenpeace’s intentions to thwart that aim? To deprive millions of poor of the world with electricty is a big call.
The recents studies which show that wind power in Australia is woefully inadequate (a study by Andrew Miskelly and Tom Quirk reported in the Herald Sun) suggests to me that there is no current credible alternative to fossil fuels (apart from nuclear) which suggests that calls for Australia to drastically cut its meager 1% contribution to global emissions to be unrelated to practical reality.
Even solar power, from overseas examples I’ve read about (particularly in Spain), are still small scale, prohibitavely expensive and don’t seriously complete with nuclear and fossil power sources.
For these reasons I feel the call to Australia to take drastic action on its own emissions that will have neglible effect on climate and for other countries trying to serve their poor citizens to be deprived of our coal (which has less polluting impurities such as sulphur, than coal from other sources) to be unrealistic and smacks of western imperialism.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Steve woodman, twists Greenpeace’s opposition to the use of fossil fuels as an intention to deprive others of electricity. come off it Steve. Power can and is being generated from solar, tidal, wind and geothermal sources. Saying that production from sola sources is still small scale is not an argument against it. It just means that we need to urgently increase such production. perhaps it is more imperialistc to say blow you jack were alright we will keep using and selling coal.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Even of the larger emitters of CO2, it could be said that if any one of them cut even by 50%, the effect on the total atmospheric content of the gas would be negligible. It’s a classic case of ‘together we stand, divided we fall.’ I would comment on the argument for nuclear energy quite simply - if it’s that good, the market will go for it and private capital will finance all the stations necessary. Yet almost all the nuclear plants around the world have been largely state funded and insured, hardly an inspiring scenario for obtaining private investment. Not that investment in nuclear is intrinsically bad - tapping the nuclear force for energy is wonderfully inspiring. It’s also very expensive once all the subsidies are removed or forgotten. Obviously there are countries around the world with little scope for renewable energy, and nuclear appears essential. Nevertheless for Australia I prefer the dictum ‘Those who need not, should not, so that those who must, can.’
August 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Hi Steve,
Actually China and India are taking great steps to green their energy AND dealing with the many development issues that Australia doesn’t need to. India for instance today announced a massive solar energy initiative. It proposes to increase India’s solar power capacity to 20 gigawatts by 2020 (more than the entire world currently generates) and 200GW by 2050. India’s plan also proposes reducing the price of solar power to the same level as that from fossil fuels by 2020. China is among the world leaders in solar and wind technologies. They are installing an average of one wind turbine every two hours and are investing heavily in clean technologies. Governments are acting on climate change to protect their people, environment and economies from climate change. Australia can do more and it’s time for Rudd to act responsibly and commit to making real cuts to our emissions. It’s time for brave and visionary action.
Wind energy can be used as part of a mix of clean energy technologies to provide us with reliable and safe energy that won’t run out. Our Energy [R]evolution report models how we completely phase out coal-fired electricity in Australia harnessing the country’s renewable energy resources (includind wind energy). You can find it here.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Thank you all for your heroic work at the ‘coal face.’
August 5th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Hi Isobel. I’m aware of China and India’s renewable programs, China also has an aggressive nuclear power program as well and they keep buying coal, so obviously they don’t see renewables, despite their experience with them, as being the complete solution.
Having a centrally planned economy I suspect China can subsidize renewables to a great extent without losing the support of the electorate, yet they continue to build nuclear and coal fired power stations, which suggests to me that despite unfettered political power they are not convinced of the cost effectiveness of wind and solar.
Regarding the ambitious plans of India that you mentioned … well, going on what’s happened in Spain … it will take more than 10 years to build that sort of capacity (20 gig by 2020) and I’ll be the first to applaud them if they pull it off … but I won’t hold my breath.
The call for drastically dismantling Australia’s existing energy economy and replacing it with an inefficient and expensive wind and solar plan flies inthe face of practical reality. It takes 5 years to build 600 wind turbines near Broken Hill to supply a few hundred Mw (the turbines are rated at 2Mw each but are only 30% efficient). To replace our fossil fuel power economy will take tens of thousands of wind turbines and beggar our economy while we do it … and for what? Reducing our meagre 1% share of global emmissions … a reduction that will have no effect on the climate as China and India continue to expand their fossil fuel burning.
There is a place for renewable systems and the principle of having an energy mix is a good idea, however, running a 21st century economy on wind and solar alone is not going to happen any time soon … we’ll be burning coal and gas for the next fifty years. at least.